If you think an abundance of housing is the solution to homelessness, just look at Detroit and it's half abandoned suburbs. Homelessness is a much more complex issue than a simple shortage of housing, as are housing prices.

NacMacFeegle wrote:

Without laws humanity would inevitably destroy itself - even with them our future is hardly secure. The free choices of one generation come at great cost to future generations.

I didn't claim it was the only cause of homelessness. But the fact remains, housing prices are the result of supply and demand, like anything else in a market, and lower prices mean more people can afford housing ...if they want it.

No one is suggesting no laws. But not all laws are the same. There are ones against violating people's rights, and others which take innocent people's rights...such as your proposal to force people into cities.

--------------Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers

Why stop at the GMA? During the great depression folks that were down on their luck lived in "Hoovervilles" , shanty towns of shacks with minimal facilities, but cheap living. Those were bulldozed in the name of "Minimum building standards" Shoulding it be people's personal choice whether they wish to live in crowded conditions with an open sewer?

Also what's the deal with car safety standards, speed limits and restrictions on how much alcohol, MJ or Fentanyl I can consume while driving my car, that restricts my freedom.

Of course it should be...if they own the property, and the owners around it do not have objectively provable impacts from toxics such as untreated waste.

The deal with car safety standards is once again, laws used against people who are violating no one's rights.

The idea that freedom should have no limitations is a strawman of your own invention here, seemingly because you intentionally avoid learning the basis of the arguments I make. That's a problem of your own creation for your arguments, not a flaw in mine.

--------------Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers

But the fact remains, housing prices are the result of supply and demand

Not necessarily. Even though there is a demand for low income housing, developers are not likely to invest in it when there is also a demand for more profitable expensive housing. If developers are building nothing but expensive houses for the wealthy it drives property values up, making it difficult or impossible for the poor and middle class to find housing they can afford.

MtnGoat wrote:

such as your proposal to force people into cities.

I never suggest "forcing" people into cities. I want to create incentives that will motivate people to movie into the cities while at the same time acquiring their vacated property for restoration into farms or parks. I also want to rebuild cities and communities of all sizes to work better and be more liveable. The zoning laws I want won't force anyone out of their homes, but instead only stop new ones from being built.

Why stop at the GMA? During the great depression folks that were down on their luck lived in "Hoovervilles" , shanty towns of shacks with minimal facilities, but cheap living. Those were bulldozed in the name of "Minimum building standards" Shoulding it be people's personal choice whether they wish to live in crowded conditions with an open sewer?

Also what's the deal with car safety standards, speed limits and restrictions on how much alcohol, MJ or Fentanyl I can consume while driving my car, that restricts my freedom.

Of course it should be...if they own the property, and the owners around it do not have objectively provable impacts from toxics such as untreated waste.

The deal with car safety standards is once again, laws used against people who are violating no one's rights.

The idea that freedom should have no limitations is a strawman of your own invention here, seemingly because you intentionally avoid learning the basis of the arguments I make. That's a problem of your own creation for your arguments, not a flaw in mine.

24/7 traffic in Seattle now. Do perspective Seattlites know what they're in for? Better work on that dry humor and sarcasm because you will need it!

I used to work nights for 16 months a few years ago. 6pm to 4am. I'd walk to work.... There after I was on days and was appalled by all of the daytime traffic, all the traffic for that matter. And not typical flow, stand stills and wrecks. Put down the phone and 2-3 car distances???

We're trapped unless this mass transit solves our problems. But I don't think so, everyone wants to drive their own car, in sweet traffic to the same job, alone. I work with dudes who live in the same town but don't carpool. Some do, the smart ones....

Depends -- if they are coming from NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego or San Francisco they may wonder A) what all the whining was about and B) Why Seattle are drivers are so incompetent.

A number of folks I worked with in Redmond had fathers that spent six hours a day commuting in LA or Boston traffic, so poking along for an hour or two mornings and evenings in the Seattle area isn't so bad.

When I started my career here in the PNW -- I was working at the south end of Boeing field and living near Factoria -- in those days I-90 was only 4 lanes with "reversable lanes" so if you needed to get out of the city in the morning there was only one lane heading east. it really got messed up if somebody had a breakdown on that one reverse lane.

People here like to whine about the traffic -- but "rush hour" only lasts a few hours and even then traffic on the freeways is moving -- perhaps slowly, but moving for the most part. Rarely does traffic come to a complete stop for extended periods of time.

Seattle's "Mercer Mess" is perhaps one of the most congested areas -- but pretty much all of Manhattan is like the "Mercer Mess" -- at least NYC drivers are generally competent instead of generally clueless.

Brucester wrote:

We're trapped unless this mass transit solves our problems.

An effective mass transit system makes huge difference -- but it's delusional to think it will "solve all our problems" The Light rail system being built is a good start -- but a lot more lines are going to be needed and when I've used the LINK at rush hour the cars are already pretty full -- so I'll bet we will soon be wishing that a heavy rail system had been built (up to 10 cars per train instead of 4)

Being from here and presently living on Beacon Hill (a zoned area for increased density), it has been frustrating to watch the rapid rise of gazillions of high rises, narrowing of major road arteries from two to one lane with a corresponding heavy increase in traffic and just human density. Unfortunately, those of us with children who have school, sports and extra curricular activities; as well as us just getting to and from work and to and from the gym, just giving up the car and riding the bus or bike isn`t an easy or practical switch. Presently the Seattle Rapid Transit system doesn`t give one the ease of movement from neighborhood to neighborhood as many European cities I have visited, so it is just an OK alternative. I appreciate the desire not to pave over the nearby forests and countryside but really wish this would have been done slower and with corresponding infrastructure. The other point that rarely gets mentioned in this population explosion is the lack of in-patient hospital beds presently all over the Puget sound basin.

No, I've only driven in Eastern PA, DC, Virginia. And given how few actual natives are here, I find the idea that "NW drivers" are locals in the sense of native characteristics a weak argument.

I didn't say anything about NW Native drivers, you are saying that, I said "Seattle Area" drivers. Many Seattle residents are from other places. But many of those places are locations are less densely populated OR much more densely populated where personal car ownership and driving are the exception. E.g. One colleague grew up in "a small city, just six million" in Manchuria and didn't learn to drive until coming to the US. Another was from Manchester, UK and similarly learned to drive here.

My favorite poor PNW driving lack of skill is the inability or unwillingness to zipper merge. This lack of merging skill also plays out in the befuddled way PNW drivers fumble through roundabouts. This is where the "Seattle polite" practice of "No you go" really bogs down traffic flow.

As poor as PNW drivers are, Salt Lake City drivers are worse, running stop signs and red lights is common practice, but at least SLC drivers don't go into conniptions at the 1st snowflake.

One thing that likely raises the bar with NYC drivers is that a car is unnecessary for day to day living in NYC and is in fact a major inconvenience and expense, so only folks that really want to drive are driving.

This is where the "Seattle polite" practice of "No you go" really bogs down traffic flow.

Since we're already horribly off topic (eh, who cares, it's the Saloon), let me just say I hate it when people do that when I'm biking. They'll stop in the middle of the road and motion me through, even when I'm at a stop sign, at the stop line, with my foot down, looking the other direction, and traffic is still coming the other way. Usually I motion them to keep going and then fold my arms, but sometimes in weaker or impatient moments I capitulate. Not only does this disrupt the flow of traffic, but it's dangerous to the cyclist as well, since someone can think the driver is an idiot (which is correct) and zip past, not realizing someone's in the street. For peds it's another matter, since you have to stop for them, but when you're sitting on your bike, you're a vehicle. Oh another thing they do, refuse to pass when there's plenty of space to do so safely. Makes me look like the jerk even when I'm not the one holding up traffic. Haven't biked in NYC, but I bet it's a lot nicer than Seattle.

100% agree -- cars stopping when they have the right of way creates additional risk both for them and for the cyclist. Also I find that most of the time them stopping to let me go first ends up being slower for me than if they had just continued and let me pass behind them. Just yesterday I had this kind of fun as I approached a two way stop sign, a car on the cross street with no stop sign slowed down as it approached the intersection, I came to a stop and put both feet on the ground to find they had now come to a stop and were waving me on. Fortunately there was no other traffic -- I've witnessed some emergency braking by following cars that were not expecting the car in front of them to stop for no stop sign.

But I'm not sure I can be pissed at the drivers -- they are likely compensating for the hordes of clueless cyclists that don't respect the rules of the road and run stop signs and red lights in order to "keep up my momentum".

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).